Gary Sistrunk v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. LEXIS 667
| Ind. | 2015Background
- On Feb. 5, 2012, Gary Sistrunk armed with a handgun robbed a Marion County gas station, taking cash from the register and two cash-filled safety-deposit bags; he ordered the attendant to sit and then left.
- Police identified Sistrunk from a Crime Stoppers tip and a photo array; he was charged Feb. 14, 2012 with robbery and criminal confinement, both as class B felonies.
- Sistrunk sought public funds for an expert on eyewitness identification; the trial court found him indigent but denied funding.
- He waived a jury; following a bench trial the court found him guilty on both counts and imposed concurrent six-year terms.
- On appeal, Sistrunk argued (1) the two convictions violated Indiana’s double jeopardy clause because the force was coextensive, and (2) the trial court abused discretion by denying public funds for an expert.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on the funding issue but sua sponte held that the same use of a single deadly weapon could not enhance both convictions; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve that enhancement question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether robbery and criminal confinement convictions here violate Indiana's Double Jeopardy Clause | State: convictions are constitutionally valid because the offenses are distinct under Richardson's elements/actual-evidence test | Sistrunk: force/being armed was coextensive, so convicting and enhancing both offenses violates double jeopardy/common-law rule against punishing the "very same behavior" twice | Court: convictions do not violate Richardson; enhancements for being armed may apply to each separate offense—the single weapon can enhance each conviction | |
| Whether using the same act of being armed can be used to enhance multiple convictions | State: longstanding Indiana precedent permits enhancement of separate offenses even if the same weapon was used | Sistrunk: using the same weapon is the "very same behavior" and cannot be used to enhance both convictions | Court: Indiana precedent (pre- and post-Richardson) permits using a single deadly weapon to enhance multiple separate offenses; no double-jeopardy bar here | |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying public funding for expert on eyewitness ID | State: trial court properly exercised discretion in denying funds | Sistrunk: indigent and needed expert to challenge ID | Court of Appeals affirmed denial; Supreme Court summarily affirmed that part of the opinion | Affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sua sponte reducing enhancements because same weapon was used | Court of Appeals: single use of weapon here precluded dual enhancements | Sistrunk: argued against dual enhancement; State: maintained enhancements valid | Supreme Court: disagrees with Court of Appeals; enhancements based on being armed may apply to each offense; Court of Appeals erred to the extent it ruled otherwise | Court reverses that portion and affirms trial court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (articulates Indiana's constitutional double jeopardy test—elements and actual evidence comparison)
- Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2003) (discusses enhancement for use of a single deadly weapon during separate offenses)
- Gates v. State, 759 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 2001) (recognizes that a single deadly weapon may enhance multiple separate offenses)
- Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 2002) (describes common-law rule barring enhancement for the "very same behavior")
- Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1994) (rejected argument that one deadly-weapon use cannot enhance multiple offenses)
- Sistrunk v. State, 11 N.E.3d 925 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Court of Appeals opinion: affirmed conviction but held single-weapon enhancement could not apply twice; later vacated by Supreme Court transfer)